And then there's the 1961 Monaco Grand Prix posted by the fellow responsible for the Belgian Grand Prix footage in which we hear the frantic squawkings of Murray Walker (added years later of course) telling us about Moss's green Lotus.

I think everyone feels uncomfortable about commercial tapes put up on these websites and the very last thing I want to see is any threat to MFQ and other makers.

No doubt now a company such as Google have taken over youtube as well as having their own rival video site they will have to delete all the copyright breaking material.

However , the clips tend to be very short maybe 5 mins of 60 mins films and the resolution of the pictures is truly terrible not something I would want to keep the sound is poor often synchonisation is a mile out. In short completely unacceptable as a television experience.

Video suppliers could view this as an advertising opportunity, showing a poor quality taster and using it to point customers in the direction of top quality films they can buy. Seeing these clips I am much more interested to see film I have never seen before and to find out if they are a part of films still on sale or may become properly issued compilations in the future. So far at least this isn't like the illegal distribution of music on the web because the quality is so bad.

Doug Nye has a point, but only a bit of a point. When I see these clips, the resolution of which is (mostly) truly terrible as RTH points out, it encourages me to seek out "The real retail thing". (Every available edition of Motor Films Quarterly is on the shelf behind me as I peck at the keyboard.)

There is a better way, no doubt, and perhaps the change of ownership will lead us in that direction.

I was hoping that we would hear Doug's comments on YouTube's blatant "theft" of rights. I'm sure we are all with you, Doug, and only hope that Google will regulate the content strictly and without delay.

I agree with Richard that the quality is crap, but people can still enjoy the content - albeit truncated - (as witnessed by the posts on TNF) without going to the source. The lack of any credit whatsoever is only rubbing salt in the wound.

I can sympathise in that I have seen some of my work appear in a recently published book on a Northern racing circuit without any reference to me. I don't make my living from photography, but it doesn't make me any less cross. One reason for posting fairly small images on TNF - if anyone tries to enlarge them, the resolution is hopeless. It is much appreciated when people email (as quite a few have done) to ask for permission to use them on their sites - I can always say "no".

I for one would certainly love to find out where I could buy that Gerry Supersaloon footage and the BBC '100 Great sporting moments' special saloon and 1970 F3 races from Crystal Palace. If only they were commercially available. At least the bad lo-res clips on 'youtube' give me hope that someone someday will release the professional proper DVD version, although I can see Doug's point, must be very annoying when something readily available on DVD is hijacked.

I will have to find out how to post on youtube as I have loads of old footage 'home movie', shot by myself of 80s Thundersports etc. Would be OK to view at 'youtube' type resolution but certainly not good enough for a professional DVD.

Originally posted by Andrew Kitson I for one would certainly love to find out where I could buy that Gerry Supersaloon footage and the BBC '100 Great sporting moments' special saloon and 1970 F3 races from Crystal Palace. If only they were commercially available. At least the bad lo-res clips on 'youtube' give me hope that someone someday will release the professional proper DVD version, although I can see Doug's point, must be very annoying when something readily available on DVD is hijacked.

I will have to find out how to post on youtube as I have loads of old footage 'home movie', shot by myself of 80s Thundersports etc. Would be OK to view at 'youtube' type resolution but certainly not good enough for a professional DVD.

This is how I feel as well.

Although many of the clips on YouTube are taken from other sources, there are original ones as well. For instance, ALMS driver Clint Field has posted on-board laps himself and they rival anything commercially produced.

I agree to a certain point that YouTube can be a promotional tool for professional videos. Most of the times, I've found films there that I had not even the slightest idea existed (EX: Mike Hawthorn at Le Mans 1956). Seeing those films makes me want to track the source. I do however have a problem when a video is posted without giving proper credit. to recognize someone's actual work. As an enthusiast, it also prevents me from seeking and identifying other work from that person and possibly find a higher quality version of that work.

This kind of blatant piracy certainly spells the potential death of MFQ if it goes on...

I think the folk who load up on the you tube site are of course in breach of copyright, but they are hardly profiting from it, nor are the people viewing it getting anything other than poor quality snippets. As a resource is it any different to using Google as many of us do ?

This is far different from the unauthorised use of images in publications, as mentioned by Alan.Similarly galling, I have had several instances of designs and logos pirated for commercial gain by others. Unfortunately to pursue the offenders is a very difficult, costly and time consuming affair.

I remember producing a full set of helmet illustrations for the Benetton F1 house magazine which subsequently turned up ( including the errors ) in the European newspaper handed out free to anyone (who wanted it) at the Monaco GP that year.

I was advised that, even though I had a rock solid case, the cost of legal action was far more than I was originally paid by Benetton for the work and all the newspaper would have to do was pay me a similar amount, apologise and I would be left to settle my legal costs...

Getting upset about breach of copyright is one thing, it would be far nicer if people just respected that it exists...

I would like to think that Doug and David could actually use the surfacing of this material as a positive, it has to be said the majority has not gone out on MFQ ( I too have all volumes ), who knew for instance , those DTV films even existed ? That they could work through the clips and see if it is possible to track down the originators and get them reissued via the simply splendid MFQ system, Then everyone is a winner.

The sort of people who buy motor sport historic films will not put up with youtube clips as a substitute .......even if it is free to view. It's not in the same experience league as the care that goes in to film quality and presentation by David and Doug . I honestly do not see it as in any way a sales threat.

Originally posted by RTH I would like to think that Doug and David could actually use the surfacing of this material as a positive, it has to be said the majority has not gone out on MFQ ( I too have all volumes ), who knew for instance , those DTV films even existed ? That they could work through the clips and see if it is possible to track down the originators and get them reissued via the simply splendid MFQ system, Then everyone is a winner.

Speed's now defunct Legends of Motorsport programme showed them periodically.

There seems to be something very wrong with that apart from JYS voice 2 octaves higher than usual the car looks to be going at 250 mph and that DFV sounds as if its doing 20,000 rpm !

Don't know about that DFV engine sound, but the JYS commentary sounds an awful lot like his discussion of the Nurburgring on that documetary called the "Quick and the Dead" (Shown here in the USA on SPEED a few years ago with the title "Champions Forever")...

No true enthusiast is going to be satisfied with the quality of these clips. The Google people are not stupid - I'm sure that copyright holders are going to be given the opportunity to promote DVDs and videos containing this footage within YouTube

Originally posted by Cirrus No true enthusiast is going to be satisfied with the quality of these clips. The Google people are not stupid - I'm sure that copyright holders are going to be given the opportunity to promote DVDs and videos containing this footage within YouTube

And maybe they'll make them available world-wide in NTSC and PAL formats with no DVD region non-sense. And no, I don't want to buy a NTSC/PAL, region free DVD player.

No true enthusiast is going to be satisfied with the quality of these clips.

It should be noted that I’ve been a tad hypocritical, in that I’ve enjoyed copyrighted footage via YouTube, and please accept my apologies for just singling out this quote, but...this is exactly what was being said in the music industry in the late ‘90s…

As download speeds increased, bit-rate improved, hence we find the music industry in the state it’s currently in…

Just to give you an idea: a pal of mine recently had No.5 in the UK charts. Guess how many singles it sold? 25,000… Let’s say he has a good manager. He might get 40p on every single sale (a nice deal btw). Total income £10,000. He splits the royalties with a co-writer. Then there are 2 or 3 performers in the band, they get a cut. The singer co-wrote the lyrics, so she gets a cut, as well as a performer’s royalty. The manager gets 20% (standard rate these days, alas).

Do you think my friend is a rich guy? He owns a nice Mini Cooper, not the top-of-the-range mind you…

A few years ago, you would need to sell 250,000 units+ to attain no.5 in the UK chart…

Another friend of mine owns a recording studio. She doesn’t pay for music anymore and downloads everything via LimeWire (a flat rate of around £8 a month). If you book her studio, she expects to get paid - anyone see the irony?

I discussed the YouTube situation at another forum recently; get it while you can I’d say… BTW, I regularly contact Ebay due to their listings pinching articles from my website. If you’re “nice” to them, nothing gets done. If you send them an email letting them know you a) know the law – and – b) have a City-based lawyer, they pull the link pronto…

I would have no hesitation whatsoever at serving YouTube with papers. Although I share contempt for the UK’s legal system, I’ve litigated successfully before… I wouldn’t let the size of Google scare you; if you can prove they were slack in removing the material, you shouldn’t have a problem engaging a lawyer on a no-fee-no-win basis. You’ll be lucky to get damages this way, but they’ll get a hell of a legal bill…

I will have to find out how to post on youtube as I have loads of old footage 'home movie', shot by myself of 80s Thundersports etc. Would be OK to view at 'youtube' type resolution but certainly not good enough for a professional DVD.

Herein lies the beauty of YouTube.

BTW, please don’t get the impression I’m defending some of the corporate bodies who’ve bought into classic footage as part of a wider deal; they’ve never done any good for the scene and deserve to get ripped off quite frankly. However, the likes of DCN’s organisation face a very real threat here and – as you can tell – I can really sympathise with their predicament.

Thats a shame, because the real value of YouTube has been in the illegal videos. The home-made stuff is just debris.

Paradoxical, isn’t it?

(Sits back and waits to be told that the real reason for the music industry’s woes is not piracy, but the utter mediocrity the accountants (previously known as “A+R”) who run the business serve up… Could be…)

It is interesting though how long something can be on youtube before being picked up by the general media. I was sent an e-mail about 6 weeks ago, among the jokes etc regularly received as we all do, showing a short clip home movie shot by soldiers in Afghanistan as a Harrier passed very low above their heads. It made the news this week as questions were asked how the military personnel could be allowed to post this on youtube. It has been around a while yet the media treated it as if shot last week!If you want to see it:

The people who post on YouTube certainly don't benefit commercially (although that is normally not an argument against copyright breaches). However, it looks very likely that Google will turn the site into a fully commercial venture and they certainly intend to benefit commercially from it - why else would they have spent so much to acquire it?

The way forward will be to ensure that all commercial clips are properly credited with links to where they can be purchased and maybe with some sort of logo over the image to limit their usefullness as a viewing experience.

I am fully in agreement with Doug and I am pretty sure that YouTube will find themselves in court at some time in the future.

I agree with Doug that internet is used by sloppy thinkers who by their sloppy thinking, perform acts of piracy. But...

Since I have I-tunes I have bought a lot of popsongs, per piece usually 1 dollar or 1 euro. I would like to buy stuff like that on motorracing, small snippets for a reasonable price. Or bigger snippets for a bigger price. For instance, I would love to be able to buy a documentary on certain F1 years, for 9 dollars or so... Just like I bought documentaries for 9 dollar a pop on the net about Wimbledon.

If the same would be possible with F1 movies on the internet, piracy would be dealt a good blow, I think.

Jerome, you've hit the nail on the head! This is exactly what Britsh Telecom are proposing!
They will have a data-base of programmes, then through a set-top box (ANOTHER one), you will be able to access that database, then download whatever programmes you want to see (at a price) & then watch them later. We are experimenting with it at Sky TV at the moment, it's called 'video on demand' !

Anyways. The point is that I've always enjoyed buying records & films, and I never thought they were too expensive, or that 'information must be free' crap. But nowadays technological advances are going so quick, that informationcarriers like video and dvd become obsolete (is that spelled right?) in a quicker rate all the time. I don't mind spending 100 euro's on a good documentary box (really!), I just worry that in five years time I won't be able to watch it anymore because the machines I want to play it on are not made anymore.

Except the excellent system of selling films online, there should also be (I think) I kind of license-system online. For example: say you buy a record, the White Album of the Beatles. You actually get a license, with a standard, international license-number. With that license-number (you have to be able to identify yourself ofcourse), you have bought the right to get the product alligned to that license number indefinitely. For example: why should someone who bought the White Album in 1970 have to pay seperately for the LP, the CD, and the I-Tunes album? It's the same album isn't it?

Am I giving away an excellent businessidea here? Mmm...

Edit/PS: Ofcourse a licensekey for software already excists. You buy, and then you can download the damn thing over and over again. But the same thing should excist for information like music and films etc

Originally posted by ray b FOUND REIMS 1938 GP while watching MC 1961JUST LOOKED at the bottom links on the pageand there were the monsters

Almost the best bit is the famous "pat on the back" communication between timekeeper and starter that was still alive and well in the 1950s and was used by someone (can't recall who, probably Mike Hawthorn) to get a better start than those who waited the few microseconds for the flag